Ben C Smith

I agree with this. (But note that the Greek word for but here can also mean and; that is, it can be either disjunctive or conjunctive. I think your main point stands, but you have to allow for an and in verse 12.)

Notice, however, that the version that Detering proposes (which is not, at present, my preferred option) does make sense in this respect, since the I make known to you is filled out with death, burial, and resurrection (all three of which are found elsewhere in Paul).

What do you think of the unmarked change from the singular I preached in verses 1-2 to the plural our preaching and we in verses 14-15? The alleged interpolation, with its appearances and shared testimony, turns I into we cleanly and neatly. And this objection hits Detering and spin in equal measure (whether equally weakly or equally strongly is the matter to decide).

Ben.

spin

First, you need to consider that Paul has already made the information known to the Galatians ("the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received"). This is why the NRSV went for "remind" for the first verb in the verse (gnwrizw). You are saved if you keep [in mind] what I proclaimed to you. He doesn't need to repeat it, just make the Galatians remember it. But he does repeat it, as I said, in the negative ("Christ died and was raised so that those who have faith (in him) will have a way out of sin and death"). For some reason you didn't acknowledge this.

Had vv.3-11 been present all the argument of 12-19 wouldn't be necessary, for he wouldn't need to convince the Galatians about the resurrection when clearly christ was resurrected.

You and Ben C seem to think that resurrection appearances are the gospel. That doesn't make sense at all. Paul's gospel as he hammers home is about christ's death and the implications of it for those who believe. Resurrection sightings don't make the grade.

I don't think either of you have a handle on the text.


spin

spamandham

FYI spin, you seem to be having a brain hicough and saying 'Galatians' where I'm sure you meant 'Corinthians'.

spin

ops:

Yeah, what you said. Corinthians. 3x.

(I'll be awake soon.)


spin

gurugeorge

Are they resurrection appearances? It looks to me just like a lineage list of people who "got" an idea.

When I say "that's his creed", I don't necessarily mean that's the whole of his creed. The bit he's offering is the bit that's relevant to his discussion (it just so happens it's the clearest indication of definite propositional belief that might be relevant to an HJ that we've got); but it has to have some content, because he's setting up to deliver some content. It seems to me that your reconstruction doesn't deliver any content, it just leaps from a proposed offering of content to discussion of it.

spin

The verb optanwmai deals with seeing, here it's "was seen" -- you know, with eyes. The resurrected Jesus was seen by these people.

I don't think you've taken in what i said in my previous post, which could be because I screwed up the reference to Corinthians, so I'll give it to you again:

First, you need to consider that Paul has already made the information known to the Corinthians ("the gospel which I proclaimed to you, which you in turn received"). This is why the NRSV went for "remind" for the first verb in the verse (gnwrizw). You are saved if you keep [in mind] what I proclaimed to you. He doesn't need to repeat it, just make the Corinthians remember it. But he does repeat it, as I said, in the negative ("Christ died and was raised so that those who have faith (in him) will have a way out of sin and death"). For some reason you didn't acknowledge this.

Had vv.3-11 been present all the argument of 12-19 wouldn't be necessary, for he wouldn't need to convince the Corinthians about the resurrection when clearly christ was resurrected.

You and Ben C seem to think that resurrection appearances are the gospel. That doesn't make sense at all. Paul's gospel as he hammers home is about christ's death and the implications of it for those who believe. Resurrection sightings don't make the grade.

I don't think either of you have a handle on the text.

spin

gurugeorge

Well, my Greek-illiterate amateur understanding is that the word has 2 senses in Scriptural usage - literal seeing (eyeballing) or figurative "seeing" (in the sense of recognising or understanding), with the latter connected (particularly in the Septuagint, but also quite clearly elsewhere in the NT) to a sense of divine self-revelation.

Why are you going for the literal meaning in this instance?

Yeah I did take it in, but I'm not convinced, I'm more convinced by Ben and Amaleq at the moment.

spin

Why are you making conclusions on issues you don't understand? Just because in English something works one way, you can't assume it works that way in another language, can you?

The exact same verb in the same form is found in

Mk 9:4, Lk 1:11, 22:43, 24:34, Ac 7:2, 7:26, 7:30, 13:31, 16:19, 1 Cor 15:5, 6, 7, 8, 1 Tim 3:16, Rev 11:19, 12:1, 3.

Do any of them help your conjecture?

You still haven't shown that you have. You argued that Paul should repeat the essence of his gospel somewhere after 1 Cor 15:1. You haven't shown where Paul actually does rehearse his gospel. You haven't reacted meaningfully to my analysis of the verb gnwrizw as found in 1 Cor 15:1. And you haven't explained why Paul would need to say what he does in 1 Cor 15:12-19, if there were eye witness accounts as found in 1 Cor 15:3-8.

They are caught in a contradiction and the only way out is to fudge the data. Try and pin Amaleq13 down on why he prefers an understanding that disagrees with what Paul says, based on his interpretation of another text which he has contradict what Paul says in Gal 1:11f. The only way he can deal with it is to fiddle what Paul says. Paul doesn't mean what he says. The classical Meinung/Bedeutung¹ separation which apparently exists only in Amaleq13's head. He's not dealing with text at all, but mind-reading.


spin

gurugeorge

I'm making conclusions based on a canny trust in other people's understanding - always a tricky thing, and open to review, of course, but hey, it keeps me off the streets

No, but I'm not sure Matt 27:4, 24:24, Mark 14:61-62, Lk 3:6, John 3:36, Acts 18:15 or Rev 19:10 help yours. (Incidentally, aren't you begging the question I asked you by citing Cor 15:5, 6, 7, 8 above?)

The content of his gospel is that of a dying/rising Messiah. We both agree on that; the point at issue is whether that Big Idea was also shared by others before him. I did "react meaningfully" to the point you mention (whether he's making known for the first time or just reminding, there ought to be something substantive there); as to the last, again that depends on whether they were "eyewitness accounts".

I'm genuinely interested in this business about optomai. I did come across a rationalist webpage some time ago (the URL for which I dont' have to hand) that showed how often the term was most often used in the context of divine self-revelation in the Septuagint. This is a really interesting point, so whatever you say about it will be greatly appreciated.

Ben C Smith

The verb I think you mean is optanomai. But the verbs for seeing or perceiving in Greek are all mixed up; they are defective, meaning that the actual root word lacks various tenses or moods and has to borrow from other roots to fill in the gaps.

So, when spin told you that the verb is optanomai, some unpacking is needed. The actual word used in 1 Corinthians 15.3-8 is οφθη, which is clearly based on the root of οπτανομαι. However, οφθη is used in Greek as the passive aorist (past) tense of the verb οραω, to see. IOW, the Greek verb οραω is defective, lacking a true aorist passive (among other parts!), and so it borrows its aorist passive from another root.

This verb οραω also borrows several of its parts from the verb οιδα, to know or perceive. There is clearly some semantic overlap between seeing (with the eyes) and knowing (seeing with the mind). But the only way to get a feel for what the verb actually means, of course, is to look at examples.

The aorist passive of this verb often indicates visions in the LXX (Genesis 12.7; 17.1; 18.1; 26.2, 24; 35.9; 48.3; Exodus 3.2; many other places). Most of these visions are of God himself, but they can also be of angels (Judges 6.12; 13.3, for example). Sometimes the thing seen is completely nonmiraculous (1 Maccabees 4.6, 19, for example).

If we broaden our search to include all tenses and voices of the verb οραω, we get a list almost too long to handle just between the Greek OT and NT texts; but overall I think we find that most instances seem to relate to physical seeing. However, there are apparent exceptions. In Genesis 2.19 God sees what Adam names each creature; surely hearing is the principal sense actually involved, so the idea of seeing here must be perception; God perceives, comes to know, or finds out what Adam names each creature.

2 Kings 6.17 is interesting; the vision is clearly invisible to everybody except Elisha and, eventually, his servant.

Ben.